Skip to main content
Glama

Zambo AI Tools

by dev.zambo

zambot_chain

Create or extend a Spark Chain — a cryptographically linked sequence of ZAMBOT Sparks for the same goal. Each Spark in a chain references the previous one via proof_hash, creating an auditable agent reasoning trail. Actions: 'create' (start a new chain, returns chain_id), 'spark' (add a new spark to an existing chain), 'get' (retrieve full chain history). Perfect for multi-step agent strategies, iterative planning sessions, and verifiable reasoning logs. Free to create chains. Sparks within chains share the same rate limits as zambot_spark.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoGoal for this spark or chain (required for 'create' and 'spark' actions, min 10 chars)
titleNoOptional label for the chain (used on 'create', max 100 chars)
actionYes'create' = start new chain (requires goal), 'spark' = add spark to chain (requires chain_id + goal), 'get' = retrieve chain history (requires chain_id)
chain_idNoChain ID to extend or retrieve (required for 'spark' and 'get' actions). Format: 'zbtc_abc123...' — returned from 'create'.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that chains are cryptographically linked and free to create, and that sparks within chains share rate limits with zambot_spark. It stops short of describing potential side effects or permissions needed, but the core behavior is well-covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused paragraph, front-loading the main purpose and action details. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly tighter by omitting the 'Perfect for...' sentence if space is a concern.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 3 actions, chain concept) and no output schema, the description explains what each action returns (chain_id for 'create') and the use case well. It adequately covers the core functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context about parameter usage (e.g., chain_id format 'zbtc_abc123...'), but largely reiterates the schema's explanations. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it creates or extends a Spark Chain with explicit actions ('create', 'spark', 'get'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zambot_spark by focusing on chaining multiple sparks for a single goal, providing an auditable trail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use each action (e.g., 'create' to start a new chain, 'spark' to add to an existing one) and mentions ideal use cases ('multi-step agent strategies, iterative planning sessions'). It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Zambo AI Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are several overlapping or redundant tools (e.g., leadsignal vs leadsignal_generate, multiple code audit tools, multiple trading proposal/journal tools, and several 'universal' entry points like zambo_help, zambo_ask, zambo_universal). Descriptions help, but the volume creates ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions vary across prefixes (zambo_, zambot_, axis_, presence_, trading_, etc.), with some tools using single words (weather, translate) and others using verb_noun patterns. Aliases like leadsignal_generate for leadsignal break consistency. While prefixes provide some grouping, the overall pattern is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

125 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, even if the server aims to be a universal stack. This makes it overwhelming for agents to navigate and increases the likelihood of misselection. Many tools could be split into domain-specific servers.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extraordinarily comprehensive, covering agent identity, cross-layer orchestration, code analysis, content generation, legal scanning, lead generation, trading, on-chain data, and more. Nearly any common agent task is supported with multiple tools, leaving few obvious gaps.

Resources